Ex Parte Senatori

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2017

14262043 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/262,043 04/25/2014 Mark D. Senatori 83853122 2762
22879
HP Tnr
7590 04/13/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
MCKENZIE, THOMAS B
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1776
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY, L.P.1
Appeal 2016-002629
Application 14/262,0432
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MARKNAGUMO, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to finally reject claims 1—13. Claims 1—13 stand rejected under
1 The named inventor is Mark D. Senatori.
2 The real party in interest is identified as Hewlett-Packard Development
Company, L.P., a wholly owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard Company
having HPQ Holdings, LLC as a general or managing partner. App. Br. 2.
3 In this decision, we refer to the Specification filed April 25, 2014 as
amended Oct. 17, 2014 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action appealed from
dated Jan. 26, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed June 12, 2015
Appeal 2016-002629
Application 14/262,043
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Meyer* * 4 and Haider5 and other
references. Final Act. 3—12.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to a method for removing particulates from an
airflow. Claim 1 is representative (subject matter in dispute italicized):
1. A method, comprising:
generating an airflow;
filtering, by a filter, to remove particulates from the
airflow directed toward a heat exchanger, wherein the heat
exchanger is thermally coupled to a computing component;
directing the airflow through the heat exchanger while a
blade is in a first blade position;
transitioning the blade from the first blade position to a
second blade position so as to move a latch from a latch-closed
position, precluding particulates removed from the airflow from
entering an exhaust chute, to a latch-open position, allowing
particulates removed from the airflow into the exhaust chute, the
blade being shaped so that, when in the second position, the
blade covers a majority of the filter and directs the airflow so
that the airflow carries at least some of the particulates into the
exhaust chute; and
exhausting the particulates in response to the transitioning.
Claims App’x at App. Br. 11.
(“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated Oct. 8, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the
Reply Brief dated Nov. 25, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
4 Meyer et al., US 4,976,098, issued Dec. 11, 1990 (“Meyer”).
5 Haider, US 4,737,172, issued Apr. 12, 1988 (“Haider”).
2
Appeal 2016-002629
Application 14/262,043
OPINION
We need to address only independent claim 1 because each of the
rejections is based on the same combination of Meyer with Haider, and,
specifically, the Examiner’s finding that Haider discloses a blade that
“directs the airflow so that the airflow carries at least some of the
particulates into the exhaust chute.” Final Act. 4—6 (citing Haider 3:35—42).
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error,
inter alia, “[bjecause Haider does not have an open exhaust chute, the
particulates removed from Haider’s filter [are] not carried into the exhaust
chute by the airflow of Haider.” App. Br. 7. According to Appellant, “there
is no direct fan airflow across [Haider’s] opening 24 as it is blocked by
stripper 6’ and thus it is stripper 6’ that actually directs particulates removed
into the exhaust chute and not the airflow.” Id. Appellant further contends
that
Haider has designed the elastic lips 25 to “hug the stripper 6’ or
the rod 15’ and close together upon retraction of the stripper to
thereby prevent escape of the solids from the collection space 4
(col. 3, lines 40-43). Thus Haider’s description confirms that a
transverse Bernoulli effect exists (due to the increase airflow
through the unblocked filter and the closed exhaust container and
no airflow where the filter is blocked) and thus Haider’s blade
(the stripper 6’) does not direct “the airflow so that the airflow
carries at least some of the particulates into the exhaust chute” as
Applicant is claiming.”
Id.
The Examiner responds that:
There is no indication that the blade 6’ seals the opening
to the chute 25 when the blade 6’ forces particulate matter into
the chute 4. Rather, it appears that the opening of the chute 25 is
unsealed because a plate 5’ (which forms part of the blade)
blocks particulate matter from forming on the portion of the filter
3
Appeal 2016-002629
Application 14/262,043
being cleaned 3. Additionally, air is able to move through the
non-cleaned portion of the filter 2 even though the plate 5 ’ blocks
the portion being cleaned 3 (column 3, lines 47—58).
Because air moves through the device when particulate
matter is forced by the blade 6’ into the chute 4, this air flow will
contribute at least slightly to moving particulate matter into the
chute 4. The blade 6’ will not prevent air from flowing into the
chute 4 because there is no indication that the blade 6’ seals the
opening to the chute 4.
Furthermore, the Examiner takes the position that at least
a portion of the airflow is required to move a portion of the
particulate matter into the chute 4. Air moves from areas of high
pressure to areas of low pressure. Therefore, the pressure on the
exterior of the chute 4 must be greater than the pressure inside
the chute 4 in order for particulate matter to move into the chute.
This high pressure on the outside of the chute 4 is provided by
the airflow moving through the device.
Ans. 15.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the width of Haider’s blade
is wider than the opening of the elastic lips and that Haider discloses the
elastic lips ‘“hug the stripper 6’ and thus blade 6’ does indeed seal the
opening to chute 24.” Reply Br. 2 (citing Haider Fig. 2, 3:36-42).
Appellant also argues that Haider’s disclosure that the elastic lips sealing the
blade is to “prevent escape of the solids from the collection space.” Id. at 3
(quoting Haider 3:41 42). Appellant contends that “the only way that solids
could escape is if there were a lower air pressure outside of the collection
space 4.” Id. If Haider operates as the Examiner posits, Appellant argues,
there would be no need for preventing the solids from escaping from the
collection space “as the airflow would simply by pressure keep them in.” Id.
Appellant further contends that “[pjressure is a force, which means it has
directionality. The speed of the airflow in the direction through the filter
causes a transverse (orthogonal) pressure of the airflow to become less in
4
Appeal 2016-002629
Application 14/262,043
order to conserve energy.” Id. For this reason, Appellant contends that the
pressure outside of Haider’s collection space is actually lower and not higher
as the Examiner asserts. Id. at 4.
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. The record supports
Appellant’s assertion that Haider’s lips to the collection space seal the blade,
which is contrary to the Examiner’s finding that “there is no indication that
the blade 6’ seals the opening to the chute 4” (Ans. 15). Haider 3:35 42.
Appellants also persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reasons for “at least a
portion of the airflow is required to move a portion of the particulate matter
into [Haider’s] chute” (Ans. 15) based on a pressure differential relative to
the collection space or chute in Haider.
Appellant has, therefore, persuasively argued the Examiner’s
determination that the blade of Haider directs airflow that carries at least
some of the particulates into the exhaust chute is not supported by the
record. Because we determine the facts and reasons relied on by the
Examiner are insufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness, we
reverse the rejections of claims 1—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1—13.
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
5